b'Canberra observed AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine4.The assumption seems to be that weFunding for National Reconstruction pathway a risky strategy need to arm ourselves against a threatFund of $15 billion approvedfrom China. Surely as our trade with Defence issues dont normally appearChina, currently estimated at aboutThe bill to establish the $15 billion in Preview, but the nuclear-powered$285 billion per year, is so large, weNational Reconstruction Fund (NRF) submarine programme is so big, it cannotshould be nurturing our relationship,passed the House of Representatives on be ignored. not provoking China? 9 March 2023 and on 28 March it passed The Governments commitment to investthe Senate. Wars are very expensive and should up to $368 billion to buy and buildbe avoided. The Greens agreed to back the legislation nuclear powered submarines may haveafter they struck a deal with the eliminated any arguments from theApart from annexing Tibet, Chinagovernment earlier this month to include Coalition about Labor being weak onhas not invaded any other country inamendments that explicitly rule out defence at the next election, but in theliving memory. The US has recentlyusing the fund to invest in coal, gas and long term this policy is flawed. There areinvaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos,native forest logging.several reasons why. Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not want to be involved with any war regardingIndependent senators David Pocock and 1.Why do we need these nuclear- Taiwan. This is essentially an internalLidia Thorpe as well as the two senators powered submarines? That hasChina issue. from the Jacqui Lambie Network also never been explained. Why not buyagreed to back the Fund.more missiles, invest in drones, more5.The US has surrounded China with aircraft and more mobile warshipsmilitary bases (see https://www.quora. It is worth noting that the Liberal and to protect our marine resources? Thecom/How-would-Americans-feel-if- National parties voted against the Government needs to explain theChina-installs-nuclear-armament-and- funding, mainly because it will increase bigger picture. military-bases-comparatively-near-to- the national debt. No such problems with USA-e-g-Mexico). the submarines.The official explanation provided byThe plan is for the NRF to invest $15 billion Defence Minister Marles is that they will: South Korea has three bases and Strengthen Australias nationala deployment of 25 000. Japanacross priority areas of the economy security and contribute tohas eight bases and a 36 000including renewables and low emissions regional stability in response todeployment. The Philippines hastechnologies, medical science, transport, unprecedented strategic challenges. four new bases (deploymentvalue-adding in resources, value-adding in Build a future made in Australia, byunknown). Then there is Guam (3agriculture, forestry and fisheries, defence Australians, with record investments000), Singapore with one base and acapability and enabling technologies.in defence, skills, jobs and122 deployment and Darwin with aIf you go to https://consult.industry.infrastructure. deployment of 200. gov.au/national-reconstruction-fund/Deliver a superior capabilityThe USs aggressive stance is notsubmission/list you can read 176 of the after a decade of inaction andhelpful, and Australia should not be253 submissions on what should be done mismanagement. involved to the extent we are. and by whom. They are well worth taking (https://www.minister.defence.gov. a quick look at as they cover a wide range au/media-releases/2023-03-14/aukus- No wonder Xi Jinping is planning aof interests from large corporate giants nuclear-powered-submarine-pathway) ring of steel for protection. to small agencies like the World Wildlife Fund and interested individuals.More details of the reasons would6.Unless the UK submarines are very have been helpful. Instead, we have tocheap, we should not be signingCSIRO, for example, produced an 18-page put up with meaningless bureaucraticdefence agreements with the UK.analysis on how it could contribute, and speak. Although it left the EU, it is a Euro- the Australia Academy of Science just focused country. We should beproduced a one page letter emphasising The US subs will have to go back tobuilding stronger ties with our Asianthe need for high quality science.San Diego, to replace any missiles theyneighbours rather than hankering for have fired; slow and cumbersomelong lost links to the UK. Whether all these submissions will be sitting ducks? Reloading at sea is notanalysed before the independent board an available option yet. There is an urgent need for a realityis established, or who will be on the check, between China and the US. Itboard has not been announced.2.Not much of the estimated $368 billion will be spent in the nextmakes no sense for both countriesIt seems to me that it could be difficult two budget cycles, kicking the caninvesting vast amounts of moneyto establish an independent board down the road is not a hallmark ofbuilding war machines. The currentbecause most of the top scientists in responsible government. As a recentactions are not beneficial to either side. Australia will be associated with either letter in the Canberra Times said:As for Australia, we should recognisea university, a research organisation, a Bring back Scomo, he knows how towhere we are on planet earth and getState or a Commonwealth agency such cancel submarine contracts!, we maytogether more co-operatively withas Geoscience Australia or the Bureau of need him! China. It makes no sense to removeMeteorology.the surveillance cameras from the War 3.Think what we could do for our health,Memorial because they might be usedPeople from any of these agencies would education and transport systems withby Chinese intelligence. That really is ahave a conflict of interest. So where do just a part of the $368 billion. step too far. you look for suitable people? We shall see.APRIL 2023 PREVIEW 36'